Does everybody run and hide behind the pickup when a Ross rifle is pulled out?

buffdog said:
.
The Ross is another one of those "Urban Legends." Ignorant people, who have no idea of how the rifle works, have never fired one, have never even seen one fired, and love to give out rumors and "advice" are the ones hiding behind the pick up trucks. The people who have fired the Ross are the ones trying to scrounge some 303 ammo so they can fire yours.

However, the Ross is useful if you want to have the Range all to yourself. Just pull one out of the case, and casually announce, "I think I will start by firing my Ross!." Works about 95% of the time.
Click to expand...

The Ross rifles, both sporting and military, got a bad rep from a combination of three separate problems:
1. bullets
2. 'exploding' bolts
3. brass

1. Bullets: Before WW1, the Ross was the latest "wondergun" of the sporting world. It was actually promoted mainly as a package of the 1905 Ross sporting rifle firing the .280 Ross cartridge. The combination had a reputation for a blazing fast action, combined with target-rifle accuracy, and a flat-shooting cartridge touted as suitable for any big game on Earth.

Then a few well-known sportsmen were killed in Africa while using it, with the blame laid on 'disintegrating bullets', and the entire package got the blame.

The problem was that the .280 Ross was one of the first smokeless sporting cartridges using small-calibre, high velocity jacketed bullets. And the finer points of those type of bullets hadn't been worked out. As a result, the early ones tended to separate on impact, much like a 5.56x45mm bullet hitting at close range does today. The thing is, a bullet that breaks up in its target may be fine when you're shooting thin-skinned games like North American mule deer or humans. When you're firing at 100 yards or less into the front of a charging Cape buffalo, rhinoceros or even a mature African male lion with a full mane, the results are ... less than optimal.

The problem was resolved with the development of heavier duty jacketed bullets for use on dangerous game, but the .280 Ross cartridge - and by extension the Ross rifle - never fully regained its reputation.

2. 'Exploding' Bolts: Around the same time as the sportsmen were being stomped to death in Africa, the Ross Rifle Co. was sued after a couple guys were maimed or killed when the bolts of their Ross sporting rifles "failed" upon firing and flew back off the rifles, striking them in the head. The problem, of course, was that the bolts had been incorrectly reassembled by them after being taken apart for cleaning, and when assembled incorrectly, the bolt does not in fact lock upon closing.

The situation can be best summed up by one of two phrases: "You can make something fool proof, but you can't make it damnfool proof" or "The problem with trying to build foolproof machines is that manufacturers consistently underestimate the ingenuity of fools."

I owned an 'unpinned' 1905 sporter and naturally tried assembling the bolt incorrectly to see what would happen. What I found was that it was relatively easy to assemble the bolt 'incorrectly'. However, when assembled correctly, the bolt slid easily into the receiver on the guide rails and then cycled so easily that I could work the action with one finger and my thumb. By contrast, when I assembled the bolt incorrectly, I had to use considerable force to shove it into the receiver, after which it cycled as if it were filled with half-dried cement. Working the misassembled bolt was like dragging fingernails across a chalkboard.

If you were the sort of person who could drive a car across town and back without ever noticing that you had no tires on your rims, then I suppose you might be able to overlook the fact that there was a problem with your misassembled Ross. Otherwise, no way.

My personal theory is that the sportsmen who misassembled their Ross rifles and were then injured firing them were not only mechanically inept but also either half-drunk or else so hungover they couldn't see straight at the time. (And given the way the British huntin' and shootin' class sloshed it back in those days, that would have been a very real possibility. )

Anyway, the factory then pinned the bolts on all subsequent sporting and military models so even the drunkest fool couldn't screw up.

3. Brass: This was the one that destroyed the rifle's reputation on the Western Front. In the days before SAAMI specs, there was a difference of about a thousandth of an inch between the British and the Canadian manufactured .303 brass. The Ross rifles were built to very fine tolerances and worked perfectly with Canadian ammo, but once the divisions got to France and started being issued British-made ammo, the rifles jammed. The British brass cases were just enough thicker than the Canadian ones that once the rifles had fired a few rounds and heated up, the fired cases would stick in the chambers and the rifles had to be kicked open. Not good when trying to break up a charge with a 'mad minute'. The Ross Rifle Co. reamed the chambers a littler wider on fresh shipments of rifles and retrofitted the issued ones, but by then it was too late: the troops (except for the snipers) distrusted the Ross and wanted nothing to do with it. (Much like, if the US had been in a WW1 or WW2 scale war when the M16 was first issued and had its early 'teething' problems it might have been dumped within a year or two also.)
 
Last edited:
The 1905 rifle didn't have the bolt problem. That was on the 1910 Mk III rifles. It's quite easy to get the bolt into an unsafe condition, just pull it out and give it a slight turn.
If you are properly trained on how to verify it (as we've all been by Smellie) then it really isn't an issue.

The bolt pinning was done much later. AFAIK, it was not done by Ross. Once that was done, they couldn't screw up.
 
I was playing around with a 1910 E the other day. It has the sloping extractor groove in the head. I actually flipped it in to the unsafe position without even noticing I had; it was that easy!

But as Screwtape mentioned, getting the bolt into the rifle in that condition was another matter! The question is; is that always the case, or in some rifles will the bolts slide into the action and appear to close when in fact they are not locking?

The authors of The Ross Rifle Story came to conclusion after examining the surviving records of the blowback incidents involving the M10 .280 and their own experiments with .280 and .303 Rosses that "it would seem that the question of bolt operation in the misassembled state varies with each bolt....One interesting test involved the firing of a .303 British MkVII RL1936 cartridge in a MkIIIB Ross with the bolt incorrectly positioned. The bolt operated very smoothly, just as it did when correctly assembled...."

I am 100% confident that I can tell when my Rosses are safe to shoot. If you're not, don't shoot them until you are.

Incidentally, Herb Cox mentions in one of his letters being able to misassemble a 1905 bolt, something that others at the time apparently believed was not possible.
 
Last edited:
I've put hundreds of rounds through my Ross and as my sig line says it's yet to fail!!

When I bought the gun at a local show I think I made it 15-20' before some "weapons expert" pulled me aside to tell me in an expert fashion that the Ross is a piece if garbage and I should go get my money back!

Then at the next table I was looking at a nice no1 for sale. The guy behind the table was in a conversation when he glanced over and saw what I was holding he quickly finished his conversation and came over to me.

He said "young feller, do you know what that is?". I replied "of course I just bought it", he then replied " Are you going to shoot it?". I looked at him in disbelief thinking why in the hell would I buy a gun and not shoot it?

I said "going to shoot her as soon as I deem she's in good shape!"

He then said in a stern voice " I'm going to tell you something, you either weld that action shut and hang it over your fireplace, or throw it in the garbage!" He then looked at my wife and told her " if he shoots that gun he will die or wish he had!!!"

Not only did that self proclaimed gun expert loose a sale but he really p***ed me off!! This happened another 3 times before I could get to the door. I left and put the gun in my truck with a lock on it!!

Just the other week I was picking up a new set of .303 dies, when the guy at the store asked me what I shoot. I said, " a no1 mk3*, a longbranch and my favorite is my Ross"

Once again he went into a monologue about the dangers of Ross bolts hitting the shooter in the face.

I then asked him if he's ever witnessed first hand a Ross bolt failure? Of course he'd never seen such a thing but he's heard story's from reputable sources! I then asked if he's ever shot a Ross and once again of course he never has!

I then smiled at him and said " This big beard of mine is here to cover the horrible scare on my face from a Ross bolt suddenly coming out of battery during a shot!!" He didn't detect the sarcasm in my voice! I'm sure he told everyone that day about my injury!!

Oh well, I'm done arguing with the so called experts! All I know is that the only gun that I own that can hang with my Ross on a good day is my AG PARKER built longbranch. A gun that has been through a full acurizing treatment by a top builder of the day. My Ross is bone stock, no bedding, no fancy sights NOTHING!

I love that people love to hate the ROSS, means the prices stay low and I can actually afford to buy them !!!
 
Last edited:
The main reason I bought it because it is made in Canada and also because of the great build quality. It is in great shape and functions perfectly and is my most accurate rifle. If you put it next to a good quality modern hunting rifle it still looks better IMO. Plus I like to piss so called gun experts off. They don't seem to know much about anything and most of them hardly shoot anyway. Almost every weekend I am out there blasting away at crap. Canada is awesome, you can always find an old car or some beer cans to shoot at.
 
Amen to all of this. Brought 4 rosses to the range one day and nothing else. A couple guys just gave me wide eyed looks, packed up and took off. Another guy came over looked at them for a bit, muttered and moved down the range a bit. I was quite amused.


It should be noted that there were actual bolt body failures on some early ross bolts due to improper heat treating - always the same spot and style of failure. I don't have the book, however was shown it by another board member at a gunshow, and it was very definitely an endemic problem relating to the manufacture process. HOWEVER, it was short lived and dealt with. The stories people are relating come about from bolt misassembly, mostly by hamfisted people who can't put a nail into the wall without breaking a thumb and using 4 nails. I've assembled a bolt wrong before, but it took some forcing.
 
smellie said:
I have been shooting Ross Rifles for about 50 years now and I still have my (ugly) face and all my fingers.

Th Bolt of the 1910 CAN be assembled wrong and used in a VERY dangerous condition. That said, if it is assembled right, it can NOT put itself into a dangerous condition; it REQUIRES human intervention to become dangerous.

The 1905 action was tested at over 100,000 psi and did not let go. The 1910 action was tested at over 125,000 psi and held together. There is NOTHING modern with that strength.

Your Ross looks to be one of the rifles done up in England for sale here in the late 1950s/early 1960s. Are there any NUMBERS or LETTERS on the rear face of the Bolt or on the receiver Ring? I am thinking particularly of PLY with a number, CRB with a number, PH with a number or PHAB.

Nice rifle!
Click to expand...

I like the Ross too, but I'm sorry there is no way it's the strongest rifle ever made, surpassing the Ruger No.1 and Weatherby Mark V. For instance the Mark V purportedly will handle 200,000psi, the Ruger No.1 likely surpasses that; but try finding a barrel to contain it. The Ross may be moderately strong, but it likely pales next to modern strong actions.
 
Ardent said:
I like the Ross too, but I'm sorry there is no way it's the strongest rifle ever made, surpassing the Ruger No.1 and Weatherby Mark V. For instance the Mark V purportedly will handle 200,000psi, the Ruger No.1 likely surpasses that; but try finding a barrel to contain it. The Ross may be moderately strong, but it likely pales next to modern strong actions.
Click to expand...

He didn't say it was the strongest.....
 
There is a big difference in TESTING an action at 125,000 PSI and having a service or working load in the 55 to 60,000 PSI range. Even P.O. Ackley was surprised when he tested Military Actions and found out that the Japanese 6.5mm Rifle took a lot more pressure to blow up than other highly touted rifles. We can even relate the 1910 Ross action to the Newton as the bolt LOCKING LUGS were identical, but the Newton was a regular turn bolt action instead of a straight pull one.
.
 
The quick question to ask all the 'experts' at gunshows that tell you your Ross is garbage and will blow up in your face is: "If the Ross rifle action is so dangerous and will blow up so easily, then why were 100,000 Canadian soldiers able to use them for the first two years of WW1 without all killing themselves? And why did the Canadian snipers continue to use the Ross rifles until the end of the War without all being killed by their own guns?"

The more knowledgable smartasses may then start burbling about rifles jamming and getting their users killed by charging Germans. The 'historic' answer to that of course is: "That was a problem caused by using oversized cartridge cases from British ammo supplies, which stuck in the chamber and refused to eject once the rifle was heated by firing a few times. It was fixed within months of being discovered, in the short-term by ensuring only correctly-sized Canadian-made ammo was issued, and in the long-term by reaming the size of the chambers out another thousandth of an inch."

The "let's see if we can get this 'expert' talking out of both sides of his ... mouth ... at the same time" answer is: "So, sir, ... is the bolt on my new Ross hunting/target rifle going to blow open the first time I pull the trigger and kill me by splitting my skull apart, or is the bolt going to lock up so tightly after I pull the trigger that I won't be able to open it at all and I'll be stomped to death by a charging muledeer? Which is it? Pick one, please." Then sit back and see how much like a gobbling turkey he sounds.

BTW, I know it was definitely a Ross sporter that I deliberately fitted with a misassembled bolt. However, while I'm almost sure it was a 1905, I'm wouldn't swear an oath on that; that was in the early 1990s, and I owned quite a few Rosses around that time period, both military and sporting and both 1905s and 1910s. OTOH, while I only ever 'forced the issue' once to see what it felt like when a wrongly-turned bolt was slammed home, none of the unpinned Rosses I owned over the years ever had a bolt that would slide smoothly into the action if turned wrong.
 
As far as action strength is concerned, the weak link is the cartridge case, and how the action handles things when the case fails. It is the release of high pressure gas that can wreck an action. Brass cartridge cases will fail long before the ultimate yield strength of the action is exceeded.
 
HammerHeade said:
He didn't say it was the strongest.....
Click to expand...

Agreed but he did say nothing modern matches that strength, which is obviously quite misleading and insinuates it to be stronger than anything else.

tiriaq's point is a good one, almost all actions will far surpass the strength of brass, but how they handle the pressure upon brass failure and the damage that can cause is important as well.
 
tiriaq said:
As far as action strength is concerned, the weak link is the cartridge case, and how the action handles things when the case fails. It is the release of high pressure gas that can wreck an action. Brass cartridge cases will fail long before the ultimate yield strength of the action is exceeded.
Click to expand...

This is something I've wondered about with the Ross action. How well does it handle gas from a ruptured case? What kind of protection does it provide to the shooter?

I've owned a 1905 and handled a 1910 but never really examined them for gas handling abilities.
 
jbmauser said:
This is something I've wondered about with the Ross action. How well does it handle gas from a ruptured case? What kind of protection does it provide to the shooter?

I've owned a 1905 and handled a 1910 but never really examined them for gas handling abilities.
Click to expand...

I've had 2 case head separations while shooting full power hand loads, and one ruptured primer while shooting my Ross. The brass was old brass given to me by a guy from work and had been FL sized many times. The ruptured primer was me re cocking a misfire.

Both times I never felt anything except there was a slight puff of smoke after pulling the trigger. I'm not sure the mechanics of it all but my 1910 model did it's job and I was left unscathed.
 
i dunno about the price there steve, even though people hate them or are scared of them, they still want an arm and a leg for them, especially the full wood, i have yet to fire my ross, its a 1905 mk2*** the bore is amazing for a 100 year old gun, as soon as i get some time to clean it up and repair the rear sights ill be shooting it:)
 
Well, the Ross action is at least as strong as a Cooey Model 39; I think we can agree on that much anyway.

The 100,000-pound figure is that commonly accepted at the time of production for the 1905 model. By actual measurement, the 1905 action has 40% more locking AREA than a 98 Mauser and it has double the locking MASS. That has to count for SOMETHING. And that was with only 2 locking-lugs.

The 1910 action has SEVEN (7) locking-lugs with, collectively, something like four times the locking area of a 98 Mauser. Now, locking area is important, but only if the lugs BEAR; this was the problem with the Remington 788: beautiful little 9-lug action but, in many cases, only 1 lug was actually holding the thing shut. The Ross actions were LAPPED during production, so all 7 locked up properly. The 125,000-pound figure is a minimum estimate; they knew it would handle that much at least. It handled hotter loads than that but the pressures were unknown because their Pressure Gun had passed its limit and could not give them a solid figure ABOVE that. My own take on this is fairly simple: once you pass the limitations and start wrecking Pressure Guns, you are getting into VERY high pressures. They did fill a case with fast Pistol powder and fire it, but that only told them that the rifle would hold together; the Pressure Gun had been left 'WAY behind by then.

There IS at least one case on record and well-attested in which a .280 Ross Rifle was fed a .303 round and held together just fine, damage only to the Extractor. I have no idea how much pressure it took to swage a .312" bullet down to a nominal .285" - and do it in 1/2000 of a second - but it was a lot. This case was well-reported in the NRA Rifleman magazine, many years ago.

I think we can accept that the 1910 action was at least REASONABLY strong - for a POS 100-year-old CANADIAN design. We all know how crappy anything Canadian must be or we would not all be buying Norinco stuff with hand-finished parts on CNC-built semi-auto battle rifles.

****************************************

I would like you to consider the case of Captain Dibblee for a minute. Captain George Dibblee was a schoolteacher at Miniota, Manitoba for many years, but he was a bit more than that.

He had been a cowboy just after the turn of the LAST century, ran 700 cattle into the middle of what is now downtown Calgary, right about where the Husky Tower stands. He decided that cowboying did not have much of a future if you didn't own the critters, quit and took a job he was offered: he became a GUIDE for the NWMP. From his first pay bag, he bought a new rifle, an 1886 Winchester in .45-70 which still looked like a brand-new rifle when I held it, 65 years later.

The point is, George Dibblee was very much a professional and had a thorough knowledge of firearms at the time the Great War broke out in 1914. He joined the 5th Battalion, Canadian Mounted Rifles as a Private soldier in 1914. His first job, still in training, was mucking out the horse-barns. They were trained with Ross Rifles, using the Mark II model in training and then switching to the brand-new Mark III with which they were equipped when they embarked for overseas. They used the Mark III (1910) rifle in combat until the Regiment was re-equipped with the SMLE.

Overseas, the Regiment fought dismounted, as infantry, and George Dibblee was promoted....... six times. He began as a Private soldier and ended up a decorated Captain with a Distinguished Conduct Medal, at that time regarded as second only to the Victoria Cross, which is the medal he likely should have had. I was told, in writing, by General George Pearkes VC, also a 5 CMR veteran, that Captain Dibble's heroism had never been properly recognised....... but there was a reason for that.

"The Ross Rifle," Captain Dibblee said to me when I asked, "was UNPOPULAR due to its length and weight. You couldn't get into a dugout with your rifle slung."

I then asked about problems with the rifle.

"We had NO trouble with the Ross Rifle," he replied, "but we kept our equipment CLEAN, unlike SOME outfits that never cleaned their equipment."

All I will say is that this parallels my own experience with the rifles..... but here you have it, directly from a decorated War Hero who used the Ross Rifle IN COMBAT for 2 years.

**********************************************************

One of my own observations regarding the 1910 Ross action is that, essentially, it is a self-cleaning action. Light mud in the locking-recesses will be displaced by the Lugs as they turn into position, mud in the Bolt Channel will be drawn rearwards when the Bolt is pulled back. Keeping the Ross in action should not be much more onerous than keeping any other rifle in service, and the specialised Ross Cleaning Stick (5 cents, but the Army refused to have them) would have made this task much easier.

In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes ever made by the Canadian Army was NOT adopting the Mark III SHORT RIFLE which was designed for the Artillery. With a 26-inch barrel and a Guard for the Rear Sight, this would have been the best rifle of the Great War.

Just my own silly thoughts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom